The New Republic

As long as we are on the topic of the "smart" (read, "toothless" or painless) sanctions that are supposed to obviate the need for a military strike on the Iranian nuke facilities, Turkey's turkey PM Erdogan announced that he wants to triple Turkish trade with Iran over the next 5 years to $30 billion a year (see here). And oddly enough the Daily Telegraph reports that Mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has agreed to donate $25 million (Iranian money, not his own) to the Turkish AKP party to help Erdogan's election campaign (and maybe fund another Gaza flotilla or two). D'ya think their might be some sort of connection here? D'ya think that maybe just maybe both Turkey & Iran are convinced that Obama is a weak president who can't even bluster convincingly? The US policy on Iran is increasingly proving itself to be a masterpiece of mismanagement and useful idiocy. Watch for most of the Sunni countries of the middle east to go nuclear. BTW, the Chinese refinery agreement with the Iranians was flagged many months ago by energy security guru Dr. Gal Luft in an article that appeared (I think) in Foreign Policy. Read it and weep. A G'mar chatima tova to all, and a meaningful fast to all for whom it is relevant. Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

September 16, 2010 at 6:20pm

I agree. We should, like, totally bomb the Chinks, right after we bomb Eye-ran. Don't forget the Russkies - they finally built the reactor in Bushehr. And North Korea - if Clinton were not so weak, we would not be in this awful mess with King Kong-il. The only solution is massive aerial bombardment. And trade and economic sanctions against China - we should stop them buying American debt. And Obama should not miss any oppotunity to highlight the fact that China and the rest of the gang are supporting terrorists. "Chinaman," Obama should say to the Chinese Emperor, "Mooslims be nasty; and you help Islam be terror. And that ain't sick." And some variation of that to Poutine and King Kong. But evidently, the sanctions put in place last month are NOT working. Weapons of mass destruction. Mushroom clouds. 9/11. See what I mean? The time for APPEASEMENT has passed; the time for ACTION is NOW.

- icarusr

September 16, 2010 at 6:23pm

icarusr “I agree. We should, like, totally bomb the Chinks, right after we bomb Eye-ran. Don't forget the Russkies - they finally built the reactor in Bushehr…” I would call this juvenile satire except that most juveniles aren’t smart enough to write something to dumb. One shuld be able to criticize Obama's foreign policy without being attacked as a war monger. Mr. Berman whom Marty quotes ends his critique of Obama's foreign policy with the following: "The United States, in other words, now faces a sobering reality. It can have a consolidated international economic front that stands a prayer of derailing Iran's nuclear drive, or it can have a non-confrontational relationship with China. It cannot, however, have both." http://www.ilanberman.com/7967/the-chinese-moment-in-iran Why do I get the feeling that icarur wouldn't be sorry to see Iran's nuclear program succeed?

- jdyer

September 16, 2010 at 7:20pm

Turkey already made sure to open the expanded railway from Istanbul to Islamabad via Teheran. Imagine the trade possibilities! I try to look on the positive side of China's economic engagement with Iran. Iran is becoming an Chinese economic colony. It's not like the United States has any leverage with China, whose military STILL refuses direct bilaterals with the U.S. Israel has stronger relationships with China, and with Russia, and with India, than does the U.S.

- K2K

September 16, 2010 at 9:17pm

Malahat: ordinary Iranians are pissed off. In last year's demonstrations, one of the slogans of the Green Movement was, "Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I give my life only for Iran." Thousands of reporters and activists were thrown in jail; hundreds tortured; tens killed. They're pissed off, alright.

- icarusr

September 16, 2010 at 9:17pm

malahat "PS - Is 11 lines the magic cutoff before encountering TNR's Post Oblivion Beast?" there does not appear to be a consistent rule. I find it helps to put URLs in the first three lines to avoid the magic cutoff :)

- K2K

September 16, 2010 at 9:19pm

Your little war in Iraq did more to mobilize and empower Iran than any of this stuff. How did that domino theory that you, cheney and little billy kristol promised would kick in work out?

- OscarPeck

September 17, 2010 at 12:54am

Yeah, smartass one-liners (or paragraphs) are a great way of dealing with some complex policy issues! First of all, it's clear that China is engaged in a long-term (that is, longer than Americans' political attention span and longer than presidential terms of office) redesign of its foreign policy and international posture and challenging the U.S. as a strategic power is one component of that. At the same time, they are aware that part of that redesign is going to make decisions on controversial crisis points unavoidable, and they haven't worked out what that means yet. It's not at all clear to me how a President McCain would have responded any differently on this. No doubt the Chinese are engaged in testing Obama, as they have done all recent presidents -- but they don't know what the result will be and others have misjudged him in the past to their cost. Presumably the administration also knows that this testing is happening, and try to work out how to resist it. Foreign policy is difficult to make visible on a short-term basis, as the cycle of action and reaction is longer than we are comfortable dealing with. Indeed, it's not impossible that some major issues overlap administrations. Imagine that!

- ironyroad

September 17, 2010 at 2:33am

icarusr, you're right... Israel should just be a good little boy and go in the corner and quietly accept its designated role as the eminently nukable canary in the august "international community's" mine with Israel putting its blind trust in the effectiveness of a putative US nuclear umbrella. You give me a lot to pray for this Yom Kippur. May we all be sealed in the Book of Life this year (as opposed to a nuked mine). Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

September 17, 2010 at 3:01am

Chatima Tova to you too Ginzy.

- noga1

September 17, 2010 at 7:08am

Ginzy, you are sounding like JD - of course that is not what I meant, and you know it. Please read Irony's comment carefully - and then offer up a solution to the Iran problem other than outright war with Iran, Russia and China to address the observed problem. In 1992, China announced its intention to re-establish a blue sea navy; remember they dismantled the last one in 1429 or something. Throughout the 1990s and with increasing acceleration in the 00s, China has been investing in Africa and effectively buying up the continent. It is heading to control vast resources in rare earths that we need for all aspects of our modern life. It holds about 1 trillion dollars of American debt - and, what is more significant - it is the only country with the resources to fund US deficits for the foreseeable future. That is to say, China is the only country that can pay for Bush's tax cuts and Iraq adventure. Chinese leaders, as I think you have observed, also go to some lengths to avoid conflating Islam and Muslims with terrorism, even as they are brutally suppressing their own Muslim minority. And so, even as China is consolidating its presence in the Pacific, and buying up Africa, it is also establishing strong economic and political ties to the Islamic world. Its relations with Iran are a small - very small - piece of the far larger and scarier puzzle, and none of that is remotely traceable to Obama, even as they affect and challenge Western interests throughout the world. Snarky one paragraph comments on Obama's failure, or "You want Israel nuked" comments by you and JD do nothing whatever to affect or address this challenge. A critic is not supposed to know how to do things, but when you criticise, be prepared at least to identify notional alternatives. So we go back to the question everyone poses here: what is to be done? Bear in mind that especially if Marty is right and Iran is now a Chinese client, bombing Iran will carry far greater costs than before, with not necessarily great returns. We have always known that the way to stop Iran in the long term and for good is to persuade China and Russia to play along. Pissing on China and Obama is most certainly not going to do the trick.

- icarusr

September 17, 2010 at 7:34am

ironyroad “Yeah, smartass one-liners (or paragraphs) are a great way of dealing with some complex policy issues! First of all, it's clear that China is engaged in a long-term (that is, longer than Americans' political attention span and longer than presidential terms of office) redesign of its foreign policy and international posture and challenging the U.S. as a strategic power is one component of that. At the same time, they are aware that part of that redesign is going to make decisions on controversial crisis points unavoidable, and they haven't worked out what that means yet. It's not at all clear to me how a President McCain would have responded any differently on this.” This has become your standard response to any criticism of Obama’s policies. Surely you are capable of something more substantial. McCain’s responses are irrelevant to this discussion, Irony and you know it. By bringing up this red herring you are showing an inability to deal with criticism leveled at Obama’s Iran policy. Now, it’s true that it takes time for a policy to take effect (true of economic policy also), however, you don’t have t wait till the end result is clear (whenever that might be) to see if that policy is working or not. It’s also not necessarily an attack on Obama to be publicly critical of his policies. This how democracy works and this is how we het elected official to change their policies. The also may not be a palatable alternative to a policy but that doesn’t make the current policy and more efficacious and not changing course lead to even more dire consequences.

- jdyer

September 17, 2010 at 9:23am

Ucarusr: “Snarky one paragraph comments on Obama's failure, or "You want Israel nuked" comments by you and JD do nothing whatever to affect or address this challenge. A critic is not supposed to know how to do things, but when you criticise, be prepared at least to identify notional alternatives.” Snarky? This, from the poster who penned a juvenile sarcastic response. Is sarcasm a higher form of cynicisms than snarky comments? Bombing Iran isn’t the only alternative to Obama’s current policy. In any case, one can criticize a course of action without offering a “notional alternative.” The guiding principle should be do not make things worse. If a remedy or a policy isn’t working you stop implementing it even if there is no alternative remedy or policy. Fro his responses it’s clear that icarusr doesn’t think that a nuclear Iran is a serious danger to the region and the world.

- jdyer

September 17, 2010 at 9:37am

"Fro his responses it’s clear that icarusr doesn’t think that a nuclear Iran is a serious danger to the region and the world." I would have to agree. Responding with an allegation of bigoted paranoia ( "We should, like, totally bomb the Chinks, right after we bomb Eye-ran. Don't forget the Russkies ..") from those of us who stand to lose a homeland and family and friends from a nuclearized Iran does not suggest a great deal of thoughtfulness or concern from the author of these very juvenile (and quite ineffective) attempts at political satire.

- noga1

September 17, 2010 at 10:02am

OscarPeck wrote: "Your little war in Iraq did more to mobilize and empower Iran than any of this stuff. How did that domino theory that you, cheney and little billy kristol promised would kick in work out?" Before Axis of Evil there was no Ahmadiejad, Iran had world's largest spontaneous Pro-US demonstration after 911. Now there will be an Axis of Something with Shiite Iran/Iraq. Bombing plants will not accomplish much at all even if successful.

- NR027810

September 17, 2010 at 10:09am

Iranians are not Arabs, NR027810. They tend to think along more rational interests than Arabs do. There is no knee jerk anti-Americanism that you are trotting out in order to attribute blame for Iran's crazy regime to Bush'es words. A few years ago I saw an Iranian documentary film, by Rakhshan Bani Etemad:Our Age, on the June 2001 presidential elections. The film started by covering the campaign for Khatami's reelection (in which the director's own daughter was involved), and ended up focussing on one woman who tried to run for president. The film reflected this description: "...on the eve of Iran's June 8 presidential elections, the Iranian electorate is bored -- or even disenchanted -- with Khatami's rhetoric of "reform." To Iranians who supported Khatami in 1997 -- particularly students and youth -- the reformists' slogans have begun to ring hollow. Accordingly, during the 2001 election campaign, the press has focused mostly on whether Khatami will repeat his landslide victory of 1997. Anything short of that triumph, the press coverage implies, will signal the demise of the reform movement" www.merip.org/.../mero060701.html The general malaise and lack of confidence in Khatami's reformist promises seems to have set in among the Iranians long before 9/11 and before the "axis of evil" phrase was ever announced.

- noga1

September 17, 2010 at 10:49am

I do like to think the Ayatollahs of Iran must secretly hate being economically dependent on ANYONE, let alone those icon-loving Russians and those pork-eating Chinese. Is Obama asking the right questions about Russia and China in regards to Iran? Has Iran promised to NOT meddle with the Muslim issues in the Caucausus and amongst China's Uighurs in order to sustain Russia and China support? Is there any way that might change? One arena that the Obami should be considering is whether there is another approach to China's moves in East Asia - all those disputed islands - and now confronting Japan. Very complex. I do not recommend watching season 7 of MI-5 (Spooks) from the BBC. Very skewed to resurgent Russia determined to become energy superpower by taking down Britain. I DO recommend reading Caroline Glick on September 14 - one way of connecting all the Iranian dots at the end of their Islamo-terror tentacles.

- K2K

September 17, 2010 at 12:11pm

JD: "Surely you are capable of something more substantial." If I got any more substantial, you'd could stand up a teaspoon in my paragraphs! I think that we don't know all of what's going on behind the scenes, and to some degree it does involve waiting. The president gave a small press briefing in person around a month ago and several reporters present wrote up their impressions. Even the more critical accounts seemed to be impressed by an Obama who is determined to keep up the pressure and not be rolled or scammed by the Iranians and their habit of dragging out negotiations. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/05/obama-on-iran/ I'd also suggest it's not a red herring to ask what the other candidate for the job of president could have done over the last 18 months that would have us at a better place in this struggle. It's an obvious question, in a way, because alternatives are one way of highlighting a state of affairs. K2K: Why the non-recommendation for MI5? Just because of the storyline alone, or for some other reason?

- ironyroad

September 17, 2010 at 1:34pm

ironyroad "I think that we don't know all of what's going on behind the scenes, and to some degree it does involve waiting." This isn't very helpful and your link doesn't clear up the objections stated above.

- jdyer

September 17, 2010 at 2:16pm

Do you mean objections to my points, or the issues raised by Marty about the administration's policy?

- ironyroad

September 17, 2010 at 6:53pm

icarusr... I don't think you want Israel nuked, but the unintended effect of your "military action off the table" approach could well lead to Israel being nuked. In case you have not yet done so, I strongly suggest that you read Jeff Goldberg's seminal Atlantic piece "The Point of No Return" (here) on the Israel-Iran-USA triangle. I have some disagreements with a few of things Goldberg wrote, there are a few errors and I don't think he emphasized sufficiently the extent to which the Iranian nuke issue is not a Bibi / Likud obsession but one that cuts across political lines into a very broad consensus. But overall it is a very good article and highlights the dilemmas reasonably well. How McCain might and might not have dealt with Iran is irrelevant now and has been for almost 2 years. So please don't start with campaign rhetoric. The issue is too serious for partisan political platitudes. I have written extensively on the Iranian issue several times over the past few years on this blog. There is little to change my mind, least of all coming from the Obamanoids. So let me instead throw a question back at you. Given that (a) the sanctions policy (for any number of reasons) is not having the desired effect on Iran, and that (b) event the wish-washy IAEA is admitting that by gosh it seems that the Iranians are hell bent on developing nuclear weapons, and that (c) if anything they are speeding up their production of enriched uranium and (d) neither the Iranians nor the Chinese or the Russians really seem to care what Obama says or does... What should the USA do? More importantly, what should Israel do? But please don't respond until you've read Goldberg's article. hg

- ginzy

September 18, 2010 at 6:26pm

Interesting article dealing with the issue of Iran: Rethinking American Options on Iran is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

September 19, 2010 at 10:41am

ginzy "What should the USA do? More importantly, what should Israel do?" yeah, waiting for icarus instead of me :) having read Goldberg's article, and much more, I am going with group prayer for massive earthquake to hit Teheran simultaneous with fullblown insurgencies by Iran's Baluchis, Azeris, Kurds, and other not-Persian minorities - the map of Iran shows the Persians surrounded by their ethnic and religious minorities. That may sound like wishful thinking, but the only way I see anyone's military strikes be meaningful without Hezbollah going ballistic is for Iran to do something so obviously provocative that it sets off retaliation that is contained in the Gulf region. e.g., Iran or proxy blatantly attacks 1) shipping, 2) inside Bahrain, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, and/or 3) Iran threatens/buzzes a US warship in the Gulf.

- K2K

September 19, 2010 at 2:26pm